Petitions to Watch | Conference of 6.4.09

Posted Sat, May 30th, 2009 3:29 pm by Kristina Moore

This edition of "Petitions to Watch" features cases up for consideration at the Justices' private conference on June 4. As always, the list contains the petitions on the Court's paid docket that Tom has deemed to have a reasonable chance of being granted. To access previous editions of Petitions to Watch, visit our archives on SCOTUSwiki.

Docket: 08-1104Title: Tankersley v. United StatesIssue: Whether a Sentencing Guidelines departure should be subject to appellate review that is conducted prior to, and distinctly from, review of the ultimate sentence for reasonableness and whether the Supreme Court’s holding in Williams v. United States–that a sentencing court’s use of an erroneous ground for departure constitutes an incorrect application of the Guidelines–remains valid after United States v. Booker.

Docket: 08-1107Title: Hertz Corporation v. FriendIssue: Whether the location of a nationwide corporation’s headquarters can be considered for purposes of determining principal place of business for diversity jurisdiction citizenship under 28 U.S.C. § 1332.

Docket: 08-1119 and 08-1225Title: Milavetz, Gallop, & Milavetz, P.A., et al. v. United States ; United States v. Milavetz, Gallop, & Milavetz, P.A., et al.Issue: Whether an attorney who provides bankruptcy assistance to an assisted person in return for valuable consideration, and who does not fall within one of the five exceptions, is a “debt relief agency” for purposes of 11 U.S.C. 526 and whether 11 U.S.C. 528 violates the First Amendment.

Docket: 08-1175 and 08-1229Title: Florida v. Powelland Florida v. RigterinkIssue: Must a suspect be expressly advised to his right to counsel during questioning and if so, does the failure to provide this express advice vitiate Miranda v. Arizona?

Docket: 08-1237Title: South Carolina v. CouncilIssue: Whether the Supreme Court of South Carolina properly applied Strickland v. Washington when it found ineffectiveness of defense counsel in the capital sentencing phase of trial.

Docket:08-1243Title: Michigan v. SwaffordIssue: Is a document from a state law-enforcement agency notifying the United States Marshal that a federal pretrial detainee is wanted to face pending charges a detainer, and if not, does it become a detainer if forwarded by the United States Marshal to the appropriate federal correctional institution after the pretrial detainee is convicted of the pending federal charges?

Cases involving lawyers from Akin Gump or Howe & Russell (listed without regard to likelihood of being granted):

Docket: 08-846Title: Navajo Nation, et al. v. United States Forest Service, et al. Issue: Whether a governmental action cannot constitute a “substantial burden” under RFRA unless it forces individuals to choose between following the tenets of their religion and receiving a governmental benefit or coerces them by threatening civil or criminal sanctions to act contrary to their religious beliefs.

Upcoming Oral Arguments

3/31Kimble v. Marvel Enterprises, Inc. Whether the Court should overrule Brulotte v. Thys Co., which held that “a patentee’s use of a royalty agreement that projects beyond the expiration date of the patent is unlawful per se”.

4/20Johnson v. United States Whether possession of a short-barreled shotgun is a violent felony, leading to a longer prison term as a career criminal.

4/21McFadden v. United States A federal prosecutor’s duty to prove that a suspect knew that a substance was an illegal substitute for a banned drug.

4/22Horne v. Department of Agriculture The federal government’s duty to pay raisin growers for an order requiring removal of part of a year’s crop from the market to stabilize prices.

On Monday afternoon Justices Anthony Kennedy and Stephen Breyer testified before the House Appropriations Committee. The purpose of the hearing was to discuss the Court’s budget for the next fiscal year and the federal judiciary, but the legislators also took full advantage of the occasion to touch on other topics as well.